Mayoral Race in North Adams Intensifies
Mayor John Barrett and Candidate Dick Alcombright Clash in Lively Debate
By: Charles Giuliano - 10/01/2009
The candidates squared off in the first of two debates. Giuliano photos.
The development of the historic Mohawk Theatre is a hot button in the race.
John Barrett evoked his legacy of working with Joe Thompson to develop Mass MoCA.
Mayor Barrett didn’t often smile during the debate.
Mayor Barrett on the property of the Eclipse Mill which he lists as among his many accomplishments.
A thoughtful Dick Alcombright wants to bring a business mananagemnt style to govern by consensus.
Candidate Alcombright during an early meet and greet.
Alcombright has presented himself as the green candidate.
A wildly partisan, whoopingly enthusiastic, clearly divided audience hung on every word and nuance of phrase last night during the first of two debates in the hotly contested mayoral race in North Adams, Mass. Long term incumbent, and old school political boss, John Barrett III, went toe to toe with candidate, business leader, and City Council member, Richard J. Alcombright.
It was a matter of style as much as substance that prevailed and ignited the audience . The ambiance and aura revealed a sharply and deeply divided community. The long term, mostly working class residents recall how the city fell on hard times when Sprague Electric closed along with other mills and an economy based on light manufacturing tanked. They remember how Barrett led the city back from oblivion fueled by the serendipity of the remarkable transformation of the belly up Sprague to its current incarnation as the world class Mass MoCA.
Those who support Alcombright represent an infusion of new residents who have put their hopes and dreams, as well as life savings, and tax dollars into sustaining the vision of progress and change.
While arriving early and waiting for the doors to open I found myself embroiled in a contentious shouting match with a jingoistic, gonzo Barrett supporter. He was railing against the "Carpetbaggers" who had invaded the city where he was born and raised. He characterized the "Takers" who had moved in and now want to take over. By this he meant artists and many first time homeowners who were attracted by the natural beauty and world class cultural resources as well as affordable housing and the conversion of hundreds of thousands of square feet of abandoned factory space and run down properties.
As one of those demeaned and maligned individuals I countered that with our life savings we had bought one of those loft spaces, pay taxes, shop locally and do our best to be a positive force in the community. This website is a clear example of that commitment and leadership.
Frankly, as a now retired professor and academic I mostly live in an ivory tower of art, intellect, and critical thinking. Peers inform me of the yahoos who post screeds to the Topix function of the North Adams Transcript which I do not waste time reading. But this was my first face to face encounter with one of these jerks. Honestly it brought out my basest instincts. Of which I am rather sanguine and proud.
Perhaps this debate within a debate also reflected the ethos of the tilt between Barrett and Alcombright. The incumbent emphasized that he is running on his record. His approach was to mostly shoot from the hip with his favorite word being "I" reiterating the progress and accomplishments of the past 26 years. Mostly this approach evoked cheers from his constituents in what he managed to orchestrate as an "Us vs. Them" class war.
But rest assured Barrett is no Marxist and there was no rhetoric about workers potentially losing their chains. Mostly Barrett seemed to be reading from the "Kingfish" "Boss Tweed" or James Michael Curley play book. It was a classic performance of the Last Hurrah representing either more of the same or the end of an era. Barrett is sure as heck a piece of work.
For Alcombright who conveyed a cool headed focus on facts, figures, and numbers the most evoked word was "We." Taking on the tough issue of charter schools, test scores, and education funding, rather than providing a quick and easy answer, he conveyed the approach of initiating a debate that would be broadly inclusive with the input of educators, parents, city administrators and the community. It is a process that he implied he would preside over rather than dictate.
This contrasted with Barrett's comment that "I will veto" a motion brought to his desk by the city council. It signified the concentration of power and one man band style that accrues to the longest running mayor in the Commonwealth. Over the years those who have opposed Barrett know the sting of backlash and collateral damage.
In the face of a chronic and even declining economy during a time of recession Alcombright focused on the need for creating jobs, attracting new business, marketing the city as a destination beyond the 150, 000 who "come and go" from Mass MoCA with only an increment of impact on local business. He stated that the city needs an expediter to walk potential small business owners and larger entrepreneurs through the daunting red tape and restrictions of the planning board and licensing process.
Barrett countered that it is a "one stop" process when all you have to do is "come see me." He evoked the recent sale and potential development of the Holiday Inn as an example of his deal making. Alcombright countered that he could list a case by case rebuttal but that small business needed more latitude in signage, hours of operation, while matching services and functions to the needs of the community including a large student population. Bottom line the city is dead after dark.
Barrett countered an oft reiterated mantra to the small business community that it is not the job of the city and Mass MoCA to promote and drive traffic to their shops, services, and restaurants. That "his" job is to make the city pretty and attractive, with flower plantings, and stringing "Christmas Lights." That provoked derisive laughter among Alcombright's constituents. Clearly there is more to stimulating a depressed economy than slapping a bright coat of paint on the old barn.
In general, Barrett deplores the notion of urban consultants, case studies, arts administrators and other experts sucking on the city payroll. He derided that as a "waste of money." Instead he implied it is all in his head. The mantra was trust me I have done this job well for a heck of a long time.
This erupted when Alcombright stated that if Barrett has a plan for the renovation of the Mohawk Theatre he is "the only person in the world who knows about it." The Barrett approach is mostly rooted in "This is a part of our history which has to be preserved." He evoked how the buildings of Sprague, preserved at Mass MoCA are as much a part of the heritage as the art that it houses.
But that "nostalgia" which sparked the notion of revamping the old E. M. Loew movie house with its 900 seats was formulated ten years ago. Alcombright pointed out that in the intervening time the region has seen the renovation of the Mahaiwe, in Great Barrington, the Colonial and Barrington in Pittsfield, and the new 62 Center at Williams College. This impacts the need and function of the in progress renovation of the Mohawk.
That project is deeply troubled and right now neither candidate has a lock on how best to put the theatre back on line. It's a lot of time, money, and energy to put into a glorified movie house fit for high school graduation and renting out to weddings. Or the occasional film festival and movie night. There is no deep stage, like the superb Colonial, for any theatrical performance beyond a one man band.
"That's just what I don't want another Colonial that needs to raise $750,000 a year" Barrett said. But underplaying renovation, just slapping a bright coat of paint on it, with no structural changes to reconfigure for performances, just creates a landmark and white elephant. The Mohawk has to be more than just a vintage marquee.
The Alcombright approach of turning the Mohawk over to MCLA and Mass MoCA is also a dead end. They have other fish to fry and the theater, its programming, and management would potentially languish on the back burner. Both candidates reveal that they are out of touch with the policies and potential of current arts management. There needs to be a lot of creativity to make this work and it is a key element in downtown development.
The most glaring example of the failed Barrett incentives is the closing of the old movie complex on Route 8, a rat hole that deserved to be shut down. It was replaced by a new, but poorly designed, thoroughly second rate, North Adams Movieplex. As a part of the Mayor's phobia against the blight of adequate signage there is no marquee properly placed to inform passing traffic of its presence. You have to drive right up to the theatre to see what's playing. Usually films geared to teens on date night. For the films you might really want to see drive to Pittsfield, or hope they come to Images, in Williamstown, with its single screen.
You might describe the city's after dark entertainment policy as dumb and dumber. Cup and Saucer on Main Street, which offered live music (mostly jazz and folk rather than heavy metal), got shut down because of the complaints of tenants above. The popular hangout now closes by mid afternoon. While having residents in the downtown business district is a positive development there has to be more give and take on noise levels and hours of operation. Shutting down the city after dark to appease a handful of residents is not a step in the right direction.
As my colleague Larry Murray points out the Mohawk may indeed have new life as a "glorified movie house" particularly with high definition projection. The Mahaiwe, for example, is selling out its Hi Def broadcasts of Live from the Metropolitan Opera. This is a fast growing trend including Hi Def lectures and sports, entertainment events. It would be great not to have to drive all the way to Great Barrington to enjoy those sold out, Live at the Met, broadcasts. So there is a lot of potential here yet to be explored.
As a living monument of the city's history, over the past three decades, Barrett is capable of shooting from the hip. He is a walking encyclopedia of facts, figures, programs and initiatives all punctuated and linked to "I." At one point he chided Alcombright for reading from an indexed briefing book. The stunning and silencing response was "I came prepared."
In holding his own against a renowned pit bull like Barrett it appears that Alcombright took the edge and won the debate. Unlike Barrett he kept his cool, promised to rule with consensus, and to bring a corporate, business style to city management. In brilliantly on point closing remarks he talked about restoring "integrity" to the Mayoral office.
That caused Barrett to blow his top stating that after all his years in office he does not appreciate having his integrity challenged. It ignored the fact that he had used ad hominem cheap shots throughout the debate. It was old style politics which didn't work for John McCain and Sarah Palin and didn't prove to be effective against Alcombright. Much like Barack Obama the candidate, Dick Alcombright, kept cool and held his ground with tact and dignity.
An obvious question is why Berkshire Fine Arts is reporting on a political campaign. Our mandate is to cover the arts. Well folks, last night was pure political theatre. We wouldn't have missed it for the world. It was a classic example of the Roman formula of panem et circenses. My Carpetbagger friend probably doesn't know what that means. Put another way "The answer my friend is blowin in the wind, the answer is blowin in the wind."